Small Entertainment Web Site Fears SOPA Will Cause It To Shut Down... But ICE Can Already Shut It Down

from the hearing-from-the-entrepreneurs dept

Paul Tassi has an article up at Forbes, where he explains how the blog he runs for a living, Unreality, which covers movies/tv/video games, would be at risk of being shut down under SOPA. Even though his site has nothing to do with infringement, he's still quite reasonably worried:

My site likes to find the best media-related content on the internet. We post photos, artwork and embed YouTube videos that involve things about our favorite movies, shows and games. I always give credit where it’s due, but on occasion, a photographer or artist cannot be located. Under SOPA, should they find their content on my site, they would legally have the right to petition my advertisers to stop paying me, or report me to the government. The same goes for YouTube videos I might feature. Though the content is not mine, as I haven’t uploaded it to the web myself, I am indeed linking to it, and with this new law, I would be subject to the same sort of harsh penalties should the content within be something copyrighted like footage from a game or movie. I am willingly linking to “infringing” content, and under SOPA, can be branded a “rogue site” because of that. Such a classification could cause me to lose everything.

It's not clear if Tassi is in the US. If he is, then he's actually (partially) exaggerating, because as of Monday, SOPA no longer applies to US sites. But that's not good news. Because if he's a US site, then he's already subject to bogus seizures by the government, by which his web site could totally disappear for over a year with no due process whatsoever. Actually, no matter where he is physically, his site -- as a dot com -- is already subject to that kind of censorship. Even without SOPA. All someone has to do is convince a somewhat clueless Immigrations & Customs Enforcement official that his site has lots of infringing content on it -- even if it does not.

I don’t understand the entertainment companies’ end game here. They’ve gone beyond obtuse to straight up maniacal. Do they think if they manage to shut down every bit of copyright infringement on the internet, that sales are going to suddenly skyrocket? Do they think people have some secret horde of cash that they’ve just been waiting to blow on DVDs and CDs, but haven’t because of The Pirate Bay’s existence? If my site can’t link to gameplay videos or movie clips, are my readers going to run out and buy them to see what they’re missing? If they land Unreality on a rogue evil pirate site list, who benefits? I’m suddenly homeless, without any cash to go the movies.

It's a good question. The "end game" is all about control. The legacy entertainment industry built their business models entirely on the basis of the idea that they, not consumers, controlled the market. Everything they're doing is seeking to regain that lost control. As Tassi notes, none of that will actually make people buy more. But that's never what this was about.

Filed Under: copyright, domain seizures, entrepreneurs, ice, sopa

The Engine Of Innovation Realizing It Can't Ignore DC Any More

from the kicking-the-slumbering-beast dept

Today marks the launch of an exciting new effort among the startup ecosystem: Engine Advocacy. If you're an entrepreneur, investor, innovator, creator or involved in the overall startup ecosystem, please check out the website and consider joining.

As you may recall, a few months ago a few of us involved in the startup world started talking about how ridiculous it was that folks in Washington DC keep pushing ridiculously bad legislation that impacts innovation and competition in a really negative way -- without recognizing the damage this causes. The end result was that, in almost every instance, legislation that was going to impact the true engine of innovation and economic growth in this country was being crafted and implemented without hearing from those actually doing the innovation and creating the economic growth. This was most immediately seen in the mess created by PROTECT IP and SOPA, but involves a variety of other topics as well: immigration, broadband, privacy, patents and many other issues all impact how the startup ecosystem (including not just entrepreneurs, but inventors, innovators, investors, technologists, advisors and additional supporting players and infrastructure as well) can and does grow and contribute to the economy.

Traditionally, this crew has mostly ignored what's happening in Washington DC -- and for a good reason: they're busy innovating. Too often, it's the businesses that are trying to hold back competition and change that spend time in DC, while those who are actually changing things are much more focused on executing on their vision. That leads to bad legislation.

With the PIPA and SOPA fight blowing up so quickly, some of us worked together to put together an initial entrepreneur's letter signed by 135 entrepreneurs asking Congress not to approve PROTECT IP. Today, we're sending an updated version, which also covers SOPA, and is now signed by over 200 entrepreneurs, all concerned about the impact these bills would have on their ability to innovate. A similar effort was put together by some of the top venture capitalists around. Soon after that, some of the signers of both letters teamed up to go to Washington, DC and speak to Congress about the bill. Since then, we've helped others in the startup world go to DC as well.

Out of all of this came the idea to build this loose coalition of those involved in the startup world, which became Engine Advocacy. It's an exciting group of entrepreneurs, investors, advisors and others who are very involved in driving new innovation via startups. We want to make sure that the voice of the entrepreneur is being heard in Washington DC -- and that those in the startup ecosystem are aware of what's going on in DC. We have big things planned over the next few months, and if you're interested in being a part of this, we urge you to sign up on the website. Let's make sure that the engine of innovation, jobs and the economy is not stifled by politicians who simply aren't aware of what the consequences of their actions will be.

Filed Under: engine of innovation, entrepreneurs, innovation, protect ip, sopa

MPAA Mocks Entrepreneurs For Being Concerned About MPAA's Efforts To Stifle Innovation

from the of-course-they-do dept

As a who's who list of top tech entrepreneurs have come out against PROTECT IP, noting how it will stifle innovation and limit their ability to create jobs, it's no surprise (no surprise at all), that the MPAA's propaganda machine felt the need to get cranking on the sophistry to try to mock the very real concerns of a large group of entrepreneurs. The MPAA's Alex Swartsel -- last seen attacking reporters for accurately predicting the same thing that the MPAA predicted -- has put up a post mocking the many entrepreneurs who wrote and signed the letter, claiming that they did not read the bill.

First, she attacks the claim that the definitions in the bill are vague, by insisting that PROTECT IP is written "so narrowly focused that it covers only websites whose sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content." Right. But, if Swartsel is going to claim that the entrepreneurs didn't read the bill, then the very least she could have done was to have actually read our letter. In it, we explain, quite clearly, the history of folks like the MPAA, insisting that pretty much every new technology's "sole purpose is to provide or point to stolen content." Need I remind the MPAA that their fearless leader, and the guy whose name sits on the building they now work from once said:

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."

Forgive tech entrepreneurs building new platforms to allow for better distribution, promotion and monetization of films for worrying about which of them is going to be declared the next "Boston Strangler."

And, let's notice that Swartsel fails to mention that when MPAA members Warner Bros. and Paramount were asked to help create a list that named sites dedicated to infringement, as per the vague definition above, that it included sites like The Internet Archive, as well as some of the key platforms used by artists today, like SoundCloud and Vimeo. Boston Stranglers, all of them.

Next up, she mocks the idea that tech startups might face any legitimate "burdens" from PROTECT IP. And then follows that up by listing out some of the very burdens that we would face under the bill -- including very vague rules about "reasonable measures" that tech companies will have to take to stay in compliance. And what she leaves out is that the MPAA and people like Swartsel are the ones who think they get to define what's reasonable here.

Want proof? Looks no further than EMI insisting that it gets to decide if MP3tunes is in compliance with the DMCA. Or MPAA-member Viacom suing YouTube for a billion dollars, claiming that it was not in compliance with the DMCA because it didn't magically figure out how to block all infringing content. And, really, just look at how much time, effort and money have gone into those two lawsuits alone. The entrepreneurs who signed the letter know that when the MPAA comes to sue, saying that their efforts didn't meet its definition of "reasonable," they're about to end up in court for years, and have to pay millions of dollars to do so.

I'm sorry, Ms. Swartsel, but to a new startup building the next great platform, having to spend millions of dollars and a few years in court is a significant burden that can put many out of business. Just ask Veoh and ReplayTV -- two companies that were, in fact, effectively put out of business by similar lawsuits. Until Ms. Swartsel has to sit in front of her investors and explain to them why we have to spend the money they gave us fighting the MPAA in court, rather than building the next great platform, I'm not really sure she's in a position to comment.

Next up, she claims that the arguments of Paul Vixie, on how PROTECT IP will break key parts of the internet and damage internet security have been "debunked." That's just funny. By "debunked" she means that the MPAA put out a silly statement that effectively said, "hey, if we break the internet, you smart tech people should just go fix it again."

Finally, she does the typical "but think of the starving artist" argument, by calling out Jason Stall and Ellen Seidler, the two poster children for the MPAA for filmmakers who complain about piracy, but fail to actually put in place smarter business models. It's silly to get into a pissing match over this, but why don't we look at filmmakers like Kevin Smith who has pointed out that fans downloading his films "leads to converts," and he then does amazing things to give those converts all sorts of reasons to buy -- such as by using the awesome TopSpin platform. Need we mention that TopSpin's CEO, Ian Rogers, signed the letter worrying about PROTECT IP? Or how about all of the movies currently being funded by Kickstarter, often raising much more money than they would have received otherwise. Andy Baio, who helped build KickStarter, is among those who signed the letter as well.

These entrepreneurs are very reasonably concerned. They're the ones who are actually powering the next generation of fillmmakers and helping them make money. They're not whining about "piracy," but are focused on utilizing these new platforms, the same platforms that the MPAA wants to burden the next time MPAA member studios decide to put them on a list...

If the MPAA was really concerned about filmmakers, it would help them embrace these new platforms that help them make money. Not line them up in a witchhunt for new Boston Stranglers.

Filed Under: entrepreneurs, innovation, protect ip, startups
Companies: mpaa

Top Entrepreneurs Warn Congress: PROTECT IP Will Stifle Innovation & Hurt Job Growth

from the speak-up dept

Lots of people have been speaking up about why PROTECT IP is a terrible, terrible idea that will have massive unintended consequences for innovation online. We've seen the biggest names in venture capital tell Congress that PROTECT IP would chill investment in new innovations. We've seen top technologists explain how PROTECT IP messes with fundamental infrastructure and security elements of the internet. And we've had a bunch of well respected law professors explain to Congress that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional.

One voice has been missing, however: the actual tech entrepreneurs and startup execs who will be impacted most directly, because PROTECT IP will put both the costs of compliance and the burdens of liability directly on their shoulders. Entrepreneurs are famous for staying out of policy debates like this. This isn't a surprise. Entrepreneurs are focused on building the next great innovation and the next great company -- creating lots of new jobs both directly in their companies and via the new innovations and platforms they create.

PROTECT IP is such a dreadful, job killing bill that it's finally sparked entrepreneurs to speak out. A large group of entrepreneurs, both well known and less well known, have teamed up to send a letter to Congress warning about the impact of PROTECT IP, and asking them to reject this bill which is nothing more than an attempt to give a handout to the entertainment industry. Over 135 entrepreneurs have already signed on (yes, including me). Collectively, these entrepreneurs have directly created over 50,000 new jobs in their companies, but more importantly have created hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs via their innovations, platforms and services.

It's great to see such a diverse group of startup entrepreneurs -- many of them serial entrepreneurs -- team up on such an issue. The list of participants includes folks like Evan Williams, the founder of Twitter and Blogger, Ian Rogers, the CEO of TopSpin, Mark Pincus, founder and CEO of Zynga, Dennis Crowley, founder & CEO of FourSquare, Joel Spolsky from StackExchange & Fog Creek Software and Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn. It includes people like Chris Shipley of Guidewire Group, who for years ran the DEMO conferences and Tim O'Reilly (who I'll just assume you know because you've read the books he's published). It includes entrepreneurs from great platforms like Kickstarter, IndieGoGo and GiltGroupe. And there may be some names on the list that you might not recognize today, but who are building the next generation of great startups to produce services that you will use in the future. It's really a who's who of entrepreneurs who helped build the key internet services you use today and will use in the future -- and they're all quite reasonably scared of what PROTECT IP means and how it will chill innovation in the startup community.

All of us who put together this letter want to make sure that the voice of entrepreneurs is heard loud and clear -- and as such, we're still accepting additional signatures from entrepreneurs. If you've been a founder or held a job-creating role at a startup, please sign the letter as well, following the instructions at the top of the document, and we can continue to make sure that the voice of the folks who really create new jobs and support the economy are actually heard from in DC.

Members of Congress and the President claim that they're focused on passing legislation that creates jobs. So why are so many pushing for PROTECT IP, when the companies who actually innovate and create the new jobs for the future are so against it?

Filed Under: entrepreneurs, innovation, jobs, portect ip

Announcing: The Entrepreneur's Corner

from the enjoy dept

As you may recall, a few months back we launched the IT Innovation site, sponsored by Sun and Intel, which has been a great program. Now we're launching another site, this time for small business owners and entrepreneurs, called The Entrepreneur's Corner, brought to you in partnership with AcceptPay from American Express. Like the IT Innovation site, the Entrepreneur's Corner will have a mix of content cross-posted from Techdirt, as well as unique individual stories, such as this one, on what the health care reform bill means for small businesses today. Also, as with anything we post on our sites, the content is editorially independent of any advertisers or sponsors.

Filed Under: entrepreneurs

Entrepreneur Stuck In Canada Highlights The Need For A Startup Visa Now

from the this-shouldn't-wait dept

I've publicly thrown my support behind the idea of a startup founders' visa that makes it much easier for foreign skilled workers who want to come to the US to start companies and create jobs to do so. Right now, our immigration policies do not favor entrepreneurs at all. The good news is that this very grassroots movement has actually picked up some steam, with a ton of support from the startup ecosystem around the country. Whether or not that translates to enough political momentum remains to be seen.

To understand just how important this is, here's one story of an entrepreneur who's been working hard to help build a startup in Silicon Valley who, only just this week, has found himself stuck in Canada unable to get back to the US, despite believing he had the proper visa (in this case, an H-1b). The story is depressing, and reminds you of all the ridiculous bureaucracy that people are forced to go through for something that makes no sense:

Just as everything seemed to be going so well, I came up to Vancouver on September 24th to renew my H1b visa and it turns out the approval I got last year is not worth it's weight in paper. Upon appearing for my interview, my previous approval notice was held by the consulate till I furnished a ton of extra documentation from our tax filings last year, to a full report of all employees, all of my bank statements right down to the photographs of our work area (as alien founders we cannot have startups in garages and our apartments, it has to be in real offices).

I worked through the rest of Thursday and all through the night gathering all this evidence.... So after working through the night to get the evidence to the officers the very next day by 11:30 am, I was told that my application would take a week to be reviewed.

My biggest concern is that an LLC due to it's structure doesn't pay a salary to it's members but a guaranteed payment. My attorney has already warned me that this is a slippery slope to start explaining to consular officers when the time comes.

Now leaving aside the exorbitant costs of living in a city like Vancouver for a week, I don't have to talk about what an entire week means in startup terms. This particular week in question, since we're in fundraising mode, I have had to cancel a meeting with Comcast Capital and cannot present at the Plug and Play Expo on Thursday Oct 1st - they were nice enough and believed in our product to pretty much waive the $1500 participation fee, only to realize I can't make it.

It makes no sense that someone like this should be going through this sort of ridiculous bureaucratic process, held back by bureaucrats who don't understand how startups work.

Brad Feld, the venture capitalist who deserves all the credit in the world for taking this concept -- originally proposed by startup investor/mentor Paul Graham -- and actually getting some political interest in it, has a post discussing the momentum and some open questions.

The main open question he brings up is about how investors can "sponsor" an entrepreneur. Basically any qualified venture capitalist or "super angel" who is investing at least $100,000 in a round of at least $500,000 could sponsor a founder. I have to be honest that I'm not sure I agree with this. Why should the visa be dependent on financing? These days, we're hearing about more and more startups that are bootstrapping their way to success, or getting by on much smaller amounts of money. If a founder can build a successful company without raising $500k, should they not be allowed to take advantage of the startup founder's visa as well?

The proposal goes on to have renewal rules, as well, that also are dependent on job creation and raising more money. The job creation bit I can understand, but again I am troubled by the "raising money" bit. Why should the investors be the gatekeepers in determining who gets to be an entrepreneur?

Filed Under: entrepreneurs, immigration, startup founders visa, startup visa, startups